Report 1104
Special Report #1104 Skillset: Aerochemantics Skill: New Org: Aeromancers Status: Completed Mar 2013 Furies' Decision: We do not much like the provided solutions and will create something for runes/dreamweavers to combine with the new specs. Problem: An important aspect of runist and dreamweaver combat is the ability to embed a rune or mote in their demesne. Since chemantics users have no access to a meld, a more mobile, but also more limited, solution is needed. 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Allow a runist or dreamweaver to attach motes/runes to a raised field of their choice. One of the attached motes/runes will strike along with the field (10s tic). Consider disallowing nyd. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Having embed in either Runes or Dreamweaving gives you the ability in *chemantics to raise a single rune/mote as its own field. Consider disallowing rad. 0 R: 0 Solution #3: Player Comments: ---writes: This would of course also extend to the druid equivalent skills. ---writes: The reason for disallowing nyd in solution 1 is because all of our catalysts consume the cirrus field, which is sensitivity. This means you cannot reraise the field and have it hit before the catalyst does. If solution 1 went through, you could just attach nyd to one of the fields not consumed by whichever catalyst you wanted to use and time it to hit right before the catalyst's damage. ---writes: Isn't your big burst also boosted by epilepsy? ---writes: Nevermind, I understand what you meant. ---writes: Any solution is fine. ---writes: Solution 2, provided a method be given to destroy or become immune to generated fields/mists/spores/etc so that the embedded rune/mote may be countered as well. Compared to other mobile passives, chemantics-user passives cannot be countered by earwort/protection or be broken like a meld. Shields and love potion remain the only defense against these, which are likewise applicable to bards and melders who have the added obstacles that they individually have to hurdle. ---writes: I wouldn't have a problem with this if 1. Viynain's concerns are somehow addressed and/or 2. there's some need to maintain this fuse or reapply it like bard's refrain. The difference between this and a demesne fuse, is that you can only fuse to one location whereas this fused rune/mote would follow you around making it a powerful addition to your passive arsenal. ---writes: Only with Viynain's caveat will I support this. ---writes: Oh yeah, I did forget that these were effectively unblockable. I would prefer Viy's concerns be addressed as well. ---writes: Since fields only effect the person they're focused on, they are more akin to angels/demons/fae than to melds or bard songs. ---writes: Even ents are killable, however. Focused fields are only defendable via shields, aren't they. ---writes: With three specs yet to be released I worry about the possibility for an over the top combination. I think it's premature from a balance standpoint. ---writes: Mages and druids with dreamweaving and runes are able to add motes and runes as passive effects via their meld. This report is about providing the same utility to those with the new skills, adding a mote/rune to their passive effects. If you feel like fields/mists/flowers need some sort of counter, that is separate from the issue addressed in this report. I would suggest you make a separate report on the issue. ---writes: Why not just allow a runist or dreamweaver to embed motes and runes into a room location like they already do with demesnes, but remove the need for a demesne? ---writes: The caveats I'd want with this kind of ability is that the rune or mote should ALWAYS hit last in any stack (to avoid memloss on first hit, always), and it should not allow rad. The shields thing, I don't care about. Besides that, working just like embed would probably be fine (memloss having a shorter blackout, not allowing othala). ---writes: I'm not entirely sure I like this idea. For one, rad would need to be completely disallowed. It simply cannot be included in this. I also don't think timing these with fields is a good idea at all because of the possible combinations we may have to look at, as well as the fact that we don't even know what three of the other skillsets will have yet, as Llandros stated. Solution 2 is the best here and I don't feel overly opposed to it, though part of me feels we should table this idea until after all the skillsets are released and revisit it.